Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T19:31:27.901Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Default knowledge, time pressure, and the theory-theory of concepts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2010

Thomas Blanchard
Thomas Blanchard
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1107. tblanchard@philosophy.rutgers.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I raise two issues for Machery's discussion and interpretation of the theory-theory. First, I raise an objection against Machery's claim that theory-theorists take theories to be default bodies of knowledge. Second, I argue that theory-theorists' experimental results do not support Machery's contention that default bodies of knowledge include theories used in their own proprietary kind of categorization process.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 33 , Issue 2-3 , June 2010 , pp. 206 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Gelman, S. A. (2003) The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampton, J. A. (1979) Polymorphous concepts in semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18:441–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keil, F. C. (1989) Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Luhmann, C. C., Ahn, W. & Palmeri, T. (2006) Theory-based categorization under speeded conditions. Memory and Cognition 34:1102–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Machery, E. (2009) Doing without concepts. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, G. L. & Medin, D. L. (1985) The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review 92:289–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rips, L. J. (1989) Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In: Similarity and analogical reasoning, ed. Vosniadou, S. & Ortony, A., pp. 21–59. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. & Mervis, C. B. (1975) Family resemblance: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7:573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, E. E. & Sloman, S. A. (1994) Similarity- vs. rule-based categorization. Memory and Cognition 22:377–86.Google Scholar